Harry Catches ZODIAC, you should too!

In the realm of the Serial Killer films – you have many sub-genres. There’s the based on facts, serial killer films. The serial killer suspense film. There’s even the serial killer romantic science fiction film, which happens to be one of my favorites – TIME AFTER TIME.
ZODIAC is a factual film. A movie based on case files and the lives of those that pursued the mystery of “Who Is Zodiac?” This is an unusual mystery, because officially it was never solved and there were many people on the case. You had the police that were looking at the case, but the detectives on the case weren’t just in San Francisco, but in other counties – in other cities spread over California. Then there was the Press, always trying to “help” in their own, often misguided, ways. And then you had the amateur sleuths – in many ways this film is about one of those guys, an amateur, that became obsessed. Obsessed in the way that reminded me of Roy Neary’s obsession, but more natural – spread out over decades – his close encounter is of an entirely different kind, and it is true.
This is, almost certainly, David Fincher’s most accomplished work to date. It isn’t like anything that he’s ever done before. Here, he’s using all his tricks to tell a straight forward tale about a predator that preyed upon a society and how society tried to stop it. It’s an exhausting story – and ultimately if you want a conclusion that satisfies your taste for justice… that’s not really going to happen here.
There’s a reason this is a long movie. ZODIAC isn’t a quick story, this isn’t a story in a classic three act variety. You’ve got a film filled with characters – each a lead for the point in time that this story is theirs to investigate. It isn’t that ZODIAC was a genius… while watching this film, you’ll be aggravated at why things fell through the cracks. Pissed at the press, the lack of cooperation between various investigative folks – and when it really does end up coming down to the amateur sleuth to figure it out, you realize why all the parties want to help. He has the passion for it, the thirst to figure it out, the need to find the guy that did it. That terrorized a city and made Robert Graysmith worry about letting his kids ride a school bus to school.
Many critics will be bringing up various films to compare this to, but in some ways – it reminds me of the Korean film, MEMORIES OF MURDER. That movie is totally different, yet very similar. Both films feature true cases that ultimately were never solved. Both films detail aggravating situations that kept the investigation from moving forward. The biggest difference is – ultimately we do know who committed the murders as the ZODIAC, but we don’t know who was responsible in Korea. The other commonality is that they’re exquisitely crafted films that take us through the history of the investigations into the serial killers that plagued their societies.
As for ZODIAC – the digital cinematography is lush and beautiful. Just gorgeous. It’s filled with shots that take your breath away. The acting across the board is superior. The stand-outs?
The most showy performance belongs to Robert Downey Jr as Paul Avery, the self-abusive headline grabber that covered the early years of the Zodiac in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Downey is charismatic, sleazy and on a constant lost weekend. He’s a reporter that doesn’t think about the effect that his story may have, his usage of language, his desire to be a bit of a rock star journalist… his stories became part of the problem, something that I vainly hope will be reflected upon by a media that exploits instead of informs.
The next most captivating performance, to me, belonged to Mark Ruffalo as Inspector David Toschi. This is a great Detective story. In the story of the Zodiac, he’s not a hero, but you know what – in the countless cases that he was on, that he did solve, where he did bring to justice a variety of felons… yeah, he was a hero, because he gave every case a level of dedication that it needed. It was just that in the cast of Zodiac, there was just too wide a net and too many false leads and too much interference and just not enough evidence. Knowing who did it and being able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt are two entirely different things. Wait till you see him watching DIRTY HARRY, you’ll probably never look at that film the same way again.
Then there’s Jake Gyllenhaal as Robert Graysmith. He’s a curious character. Jake plays the cartoonist as a man with a hobby. A morbid fascination with a code that the Zodiac sent in which grew into an obsession into all things Zodiac. After all the initial investigators have essentially moved on or retired, it was his curiosity to look at all the facts, all the situations and suspects that led to what is widely accepted to be the truth of the matter.
I loved the film. I found it to be a methodical telling of what happened and how someone like the Zodiac could go on for such a long period of time without being brought to justice. It was a different time back then. All the information wasn’t logged into computers, people didn’t cooperate from department to department the way one would like. The one problem that the police steal have to deal with – is the insanity that the media has continued to become.
This is the definitive film on ZODIAC that we’re likely to ever see.

Maybe you mentioned it in the review and I just missed it (it's early for me), but what is the run time of the movie? I have read many reviews that give different answers to this. I am sure most were not final cuts of the film though.

Research for this film did bring a few things to light. Theres also a Zodiac letter that hasnt been released before that was just unearthed. The Chronicle is sittingon it at the moment, but we can expect news soon.

Fincher is not really a must-see. I still believe that somebody else directed Fight Club! Who? Don't know but I'm sure they slapped Fincher's name on it for marketing reasons. That wasn't a David Fincher-Film...it was BRILLANT!

I'd read that the guy (who was in jail and is now dead) that police thought was the Zodiac was cleared because of DNA evidence taken from one of the original Zodiac letter envelopes. It's still an unsolved case, and although the last activity by the Zodiac was in '78 or something, it is possible that the Zodiac is still alive.

he could be sitting behind any one of you in theater this weekend. He often wrote of his love of movies and about the movies that would eventually be made about him. Oh, one more thing, Harry... is the movie actually scary? Because it should be.

Just found out our theatre is going to have this. Was worried. Sometimes movies like this don't make their way to us. Cannot wait. Unsolved stories always fascinate me. I remember as a kid hearing my uncles discuss the Zodiac. I think it will be worth the admission.

You're right. Perhaps it was Uwe Boll. Salvador Dali came back from the dead to do it. No, I've got it, it was a rag tag team of directors made up of Guy Ritchie, Tom Twyker, and F. Gary Gray. And Alien 3 was actually directed by Stanley Kubrick.

Hmmm a positive review from Harry and the site is advertising the movie... Harry, I really think you should refrain from posting reviews for movies your site advertises. Even if your review is honest and sincere it makes you look bad. Good day sir.

but I stopped reading after "That movie is totally different, yet very similar." <p>
That sort of shit drives me up the freakin' wall, and it's why I rarely pay any attention to the reviews on this site. The movie news--all well and good. The reviews--worthless (excepting Vern and most of McWeeny's).<p>
If the movie is "totally different" from MEMORIES OF MURDER and also be "very similar." Everything that follows from that sentence is gibberish.<p>
Rant over.

What a great film! Mary Steenburgen never looked better. Years ago I met Malcom McDowell at a KY Derby party hosted in a private home. I told him how Time After Time was one of my favorites and he replied that he was a bit tired (but still flattered) by all the Clockwork Orange worship and was refreshed to have someone (me) mention that particular film. Swell guy.

Greysmith is damn certain that he knows who it is. It seems like it is him but you can never be certain. Too many non-fiction writers take too many liberties to prove how smart they are. There were a lot of copycats and false description that really screwed the case up. It seems like it would have been difficult to catch a serial killer at that time with the antiquated way they investigated cases. It's like those 70s cop shows where a guy and his partner work night and day on their own.

Very positive, but kind of a thinly masked disappointment that the film wasn't quite what he'd been expecting. Even though he had a lot of nice things to say, the praise seemed a little....restrained. Like, "No, yeah, you know...this film is super good...definitely go see it and stuff."

It is a long, exhausting movie, but ultimately a very good movie. I still think Fight Club is Fincher at his best though. Unfortunately directors everywhere decided to try and copy his style. There are a few subtle shots in the film that are classic Fincher, but they are very cleverly disguised.

Yes, Graysmith did an exhaustive amount of research, but only he is SURE that he knows who the Zodiac was. I don't know that any official statement has ever been made that people accept his findings as fact, any more than people accept that JA Jance knows who the REAL Jack the Ripper was...

Is Overrated. Sorry, but it's true. If you're in LA and want to see a good serial killer flick, check out Antibodies at the Beverly Center. Also, The Host is also definitely better than Memories of Murder. Just felt that one was overhyped. I watched it after Infernal Affairs so naturally it couldn't compare...

...for no apparent reason? I hope this is good. Fincher has only ever made two good films. Panic Room was just a remake of Home Alone - the bad guys were just as intimidating. Oh, and Alien3 extended dvd only served to prove that the editor of the theatrical cut was a genius for making a half-watchable film out of that steaming pile. Fight Club and Seven though? Great movies. The man clearly has a huge amount of talent. Hope this gets back a little bit of what made those great. Looking forward to it in a nervous kind of way.

I've kind of gotten used to Harry's hyperbole. It's just that when he doesn't gush about a film, it usually means one of two things: 1) The film was solid but forgettable, or 2) The film came from a good pedigree but was boring as shit. Either way, it seems like the kind of movie where you leave the theater saying, "good movie", then 6 months later your buddy asks if you want to watch it on DVD and you realize that you have no desire to sit through it ever again.

Most never get caught due to sheer police ineptitude. And they are caught almost as randomly with fair bits of sleuthing and extreme luck.<p>Zodiac ain't no genius, that's for sure. Clever, yes. But, deluded into mistaking his own cleverness for superiority.<p>I have a t-shirt with the Zodiac on it (in the hood with the pistol) and on the back it has the transcription of his "I like killing people" cryptogram. I'm wearing it to the theater. Hey, he asked people of SF back in the day to wear "nice little" Zodiac buttons.

Sure he uses CGI, but in suttle ways. In Fight Club for instance the brief sex scene between Tyler and Marla was completely computer generated. Not to mention the bullet through the mouth at the end. Watch the extras.

on the same page as the reviews in Newspapers mean those critics are all on the take? I mean, those critics are being paid from the Ad Revenue that the Newspaper takes in and is placed there.
<BR><BR>Fact is, Ads are handled by Gorilla Nation and Roland Denoie, and I have never been contacted by either regarding my reviews. Editorial and Advertising never talk.

Because I'm sure newspaper ads placed by the studios pay an incredibly miniscule portion of the typical critic's salary. Their salaries are paid mostly through subscriptions and revenue from all the other ads throughout the rest of the paper. What exactly, pays your salary?

it's amazing top notch performance, i agree 100% with harry on all counts. Graysmith did a q and a with a friend of mine prior to the screening and he mentioned that he and the detective ruffalo plays had a hard time keeping their eyes on the screen because of how haunting the memories were. The length never bothered me it was so intriguing, knowing it was based on fact made it that better and it felt so authentic, i didn't need graysmith to assure me you can tell a lot of research and passion went into this.

in the mid ninties all were murdered. One was american the rest were Irish. One suspect is in jail after he raped a woman on single night in three different places and was going to kill her but was caught and was given was sentenced for assault and battery, three counts of rape and attempted murder. He was a carpenter. One suspect is in UK. The last murder he committed was in NI. and it was only after his conviction did the judge discover that this man known as Robert Leserian Howard had been a child criminal and then teen rapist and then adult sex attacker. Robert Howard was was 15 when he raped an elderly lady. He was born in Ireland and lived in the UK. So what they think he did was he would commit a crime, go to england stay there, commit a crime go to Ireland, return to england etc. None of the bodies of these woman have ever been recovered. Recently, there was a break in the case of fiona Sinnot, A group of people were arrested. but were let go. Then there is the case of Phillip Kairns, the dubliner who was murdered and has never been found. There is a very good called Vanished missing without a trace in ireland By Rte's Barry Cummins and first rate it is too. Annie mcCarricks family have been detroyed by who ever killed there daughted. There was a guy called MIcheal Murphy went missing for 2.5 years and his body was eventually found near the dart station where he was last seen and it was found by some work men.

It seems like the line of great films isn't going to stop anytime soon. What great times... <br>
The Oscar Coverage Page is gone? <br> Well...as a matter of fact...the Academy has ordered to take down all proof of the show's existence.

this movie's based on Graysmith's book about the zodiac. unfortunately DNA tests conducted in 2002 on the zodiac's letters rule out the man Graysmith points to being the killer in his book (and presumably is identified similarly in the movie). Bottom line, we have no idea who the zodiac was, and thats some scary shit

All you retards who actually think that Harry or any other reviewer on this site is "on the take" are acting completely ridiculous. So Paramount decides to pony up some dough to put some Zodiac ads on a site like AICN where they know every fanboy with a Fincher hard-on surfs. Big deal! Do you really think Paramount needs to pay for good reviews on Zodiac? Are you kidding me? Furthermore, do you really think Harry, as a responsible journalist, which technically we all are, would really accept gifts and allow them to influence his review? No. I can't speak for Harry but the reason I review movies, for one, is to tell it the way it is. There is so much money spent on studio marketing, it's all fucking trickery. For instance, Smokin' Aces and The Number 23. Both looked perfectly interesting thanks to their catchy ad campaigns... and both blew ass chunks. I'm here to warn you, the people who actually pay for movies (because I sure as hell don't anymore), because I don't want to see you guys suffer through some of these god-awful movies. Zodiac is every bit the masterpiece you've been reading it is, and no, Paramount didn't pay me for that one either. See it or don't see it, I don't care, but you'll be glad that you did if you do.

He said last Friday that he would have his review up over the weekend and he never posted it... So far everyone i've read either loves it or likes it so I will be there... GET YOUR REVIEW UP MORI YOU LAZY BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There have been movies and books about killers since forever. And with shows like csi, law and order and other that deal with killers every week, and torture porn movies, this movie won't show anything we haven't seen a miliion times before. On another note, remember when Nash Bridges was chasing a Zodiac copycat? Then at the end of the episode, the real Zodiac called him on his cell and congratulated him on catching the copycat. That was funny. Anyway, I'm sure David Caruso could have solved this case in 45 minutes.

Does making a film about Hitler cause a sudden rise in fascist dictators? Does making a zombie film cause people to go out and eat their neighbours? Did True Lies encourage an increase in terrorism? Did Pretty Woman encourage more women to become prostitutes?<p>You're raving, sir. People are either fucked up weirdos who want to kill people, or they're not. A film isn't going to magically turn one kind of person into the other.

I never said anything about anyone being on the take. I simply mentioned that accepting banner ads from films you plan on reviewing raises a bit of an ethical issue. And next thing you know, Mirajeff Balboa up and calls me a retard.

You do know that VARIETY takes ads from every studio, right? And so does PREMIERE. And so does ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY. And on and on and on.
<P>But what you may not understand is that editorial has nothing to do with those ads. I personally don't even know what ads we have running on the site at any given moment thanks to the magical powers of Firefox. I certainly don't get a memo from our business guy saying, "Hey, we've got some ZODIAC ads coming up, so play nice." He wouldn't dare.
<P>So "we" didn't take any ads. "We" don't deal with the ads. "We" aren't affected by them. We've got people to take care of that for us, and it keeps our hands squeaky clean. Sorry to dissapoint.

Puh-leeeeeze.
<P>This is the oldest, lamest argument there is. The truth is very simple, and always has been. Of course we are all biased. So is every single film fan who takes the medium seriously. You are biased. You have filmmakers you like and filmmakers you don't. You have genres you like and genres you don't. You have films you're more likely to watch and film you're less likely to watch.
<P>That's what being a film fan is all about.
<P>Everything else is just jealousy, a desire to stir up controversy to try and tap some portion of our readership, or just plain someone being a douchebag. You can try to paint us as corrupt if you must, but saying it over and over still doesn't make it true.
<P>I stand behind every single word I've written about every single film I've covered in the last ten years. I am proud to have an archive of a decade of my reactions to film, and I meant every word of it. That isn't changing any time soon. Believe it or don't... I'll still be here.

Some of you seem determined to hold onto something that even Chris has outgrown. Chris came to the 10th Anniversary AICN panel in Austin, and afterwards made a big show of approaching all of us to say that he no longer believes those preposterous, mean-spirited, inaccurate hit pieces that Ron Wells vomited at Film Threat.
<P>Speaking of Ron Wells, I wonder what cardboard box he's sleeping in tonight and what dumpster he's eating out of. Boy, he really rode that "expose" right to the top of his profession, didn't he?
<P>Oh, wait. We're all still here publishing, just as we were then, and he's sucking dick for nickels somewhere.
<P>Karma. Sweet.

triple black rant. Impressed. <p> of course everyone is biased, that's obvious. Harry went through that streak last summer where he absolutely loved every film he reviewed, and there were some real stinkers in there (idlewild). He's nowhere near the worst though, Empire has that prize. I remember them publishing a second review of attack of the clones justifying the overinflated rating they gave it- and the justification was that they had to give it 5 stars as The phantom menace got 4. <p> having said that I'm biased as hell and will be shelling out for this as Fincher is a genius. Even Alien 3- You heard me, FUCK NEWT- good riddance, (not as good as Alien or Aliens, but better than Alien Resurrection and AvP)

The third act could have used just a bit more of fine tuning (the domestic scenes were a bit meh), but overall this is a rock solid piece of work from Fincher. I'll never listen to 'Hurdy Gurdy Man' by Donovan again without getting a chill down my spine. :)

have gotten much better. The quality has (for the most part) always been good, but now you seem to just get right to the point.<p> I really expected to open this and read five paragraphs about how you ate raw meat and drank bloody marys while doing the Zodiac dance, but you got right to it. Nice job.

Ads do influence what news reports we see (and, more important, the ones we don't see). But I'm pretty sure that the last thing we have to worry about is whether or not Harry is "ad influenced" (which, personally, I don't think he is). Even though I don't always like the reviews - on the rare occasion that we actually get one - this site has always been good about pointing out biases such as set visits, conversations/relationships with filmmakers, etc. Anyway, if people really are concerned about advertising's influence on reporting, then put your money where your mouth is and read "The Media Monopoly" by Ben Bagdikian. (and vote against John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman, and anyone else who supports their poorly 1984 double-speak named Media Marketing Accountability Act which puts even more control of the media and advertising in the hands of multinationals).

Lotsa' Harry Hate back then. But, there were some weird things about like the Oscar List fiasco, the Drew McWeeney script review, the drooling over "pwesents," etc. Harry got called out by Ben Stein, fer chrissakes!<p>And, Mori/Drew, don't start defending Harry in response to this post. I'm just stating that there was a time when some egregious behavior was noticed by many and it engendered a lot of Anti-Harry sentiment. The hyperbolic vitriol spewed by Ron Wells only exacerbated it. Note that Film Threat no longer has his "expose" articles archived.

So Mori, you say you have people who handle the advertising portion of the site. Does that also mean they get to keep all the money? Because I have a feeling you get a pretty nice cut. Much nicer than the average Variety columnist gets. The way you've all jumped on this issue tells me that, at the very least, you have a guilty conscience about it.

Of course he gets a cut. Why else would he put up with dinks like you? You don't think its for the love of film, do you? That's why you watch or make films. You write about film to jerk your mind off for others to read, and to possibly cash in. Harry and Mori are lucky enough to jerk off and use their cash to clean up. It's just fucking pratical. But why the debate? What's your little beefy here?

Harry and Mori give positive reviews for films that have ads here only because they have ads here, or do you find fault with reviewing anything that may have an ad on here? Or both, I suppose that's possible.

They personally shouldn't review films that the site features banner ads for. Period. Look, I know Zodiac is gonna be great. I can look at rottentomatoes.com and figure that out. But it's still rather unseemly to see a glowing movie review posted directly across from a banner ad for said movie. I don't think it takes Woodward or Bernstein to figure that out.

The lovable cartoon bears? Oh, those guys; yeah, they could crack it. Still, I can't admit a conflict. It's the internet; the bitch is dirty by nature. As for the movie: I just might see this on opening night, and I havent done something that stupid since Kill Bill. Should be fun.

Look through my posts. Is there anything in them that accuses anyone of being on the take? Do I so much as take an accusatory tone? No. Not once. And for that I'm scolded, called a retard and told to leave? I'm starting to wonder if I should have someone else start my car for me tonight.

I think that's what the issue is. At least, that's my issue. Good reviews tend to follow on the heels of set visits and goodie baskets, all of which get detailed with bravado in some reviews (not as much as they used to, but still). We get positive production news on a film, all kinds of juicy scoopage, Harry gets a visit or a phone call, then comes the GREAT review, then the site banner. It's just bad form. It gives the *appearance* that something is up.

But not once to my satisfaction. Do you really expect me to believe this site is no different than a newspaper that also takes ads from studios? 'Cuz last I checked, newspapers get ad revenue from dozens, if not hundreds, of different businesses completely unrelated to the film industry. They also get revenue from subscriptions and single paper sales. So what percentage of a newspaper critic's salary is actually paid by the movie studios? .05%? Meanwhile, this site gets banner ads from movie studios and, very rarely, a collectibles company. That's it. So what percentage of their proceeds are paid by the studios? 50%? More? How exactly is that the same?

to bust their balls over their need to be supported by the film industry. They write about fucking movies, and in order to let us know this they accept ads to pay for the space. Who, one may ask, would be interested in placing ads on a film website? A ‘film studio’ comes to mind. Which studios are more likely to post film ads on film websites? Likely, film studios with films coming out in the near future. Which film studio has a film coming out soon? Warner Bros, you say. And what film are they releasing? I heard someone yell out ‘Zodiac’. And when is ‘Zodiac’ to be released? Fucking Friday! This is what these arseholes do; they talk about the hyped movies that are coming out. Sometimes (but by no means always as I have seen many non-film ads) they are paid by film studios who’s films are obviously going to be reviewed on a bloody film related website that prides itself on their ability to produce popular film critiques. Man, fuck this shit, I gotta eat.

<P>First of all, I haven't scolded you, called you a retard, or told you to leave, Garbageman. But if you're going to post something that calls the personal ethics of the people on this site into question, based entirely on your own personal peeve about an ad, then you should expect to hear some sort of response to that charge. You're wrong. Period. You can tell me that you don't like seeing the banner ad on a review of that same film, but that still doesn't mean that they are directly connected or that one influences the other. I will repeat it again. The ads on this site do not influence our reviews. It's that simple. I'm not being ambiguous about it. What you choose to believe in this case is up to you, but that is the truth.
<P>I have ten years of my reviews archived at this point. A decade of my opinion that you are free to sort through. That speaks for itself now. My personal tastes are crystal clear to anyone who cares, and they are consistent. I stand behind every review I've written. Period.
<P>Tom Bodet, you said, "You fuckers are as far into the tank for your faves here as the Roger Ailes network is for the GOP or Johnny Most was for the Celtics all those years. Pretending otherwise is at best naive and at worst lying your asses off."
<P>The key point in your quote is when you say "your faves." Yes. I have favorite films and favorite filmmakers. This is not a secret. I've also explained, in print, why those people are my favorite filmmakers. And in every single case, it's about the work. Again, you can choose to interpret some sinister level of meaning behind that, but you're wrong. You're projecting if that's what you see. I review the films, not the filmmakers, and if you believe otherwise, show me the reviews... the specific reviews... where you think I am simply writing to satisfy some sinister agenda of this site instead of expressing my honest opinion.
<P>It's easy to say, "You're suspect." It's not new, either. But at some point, saying "you're suspect" over and over without being able to articulate anything beyond that just becomes a hollow pose you're striking.
<P>I genuinely believe that the people who are most obsessed with the idea of "selling out" are the ones who would do it if the opportunity was there. I think you see in others the things you believe you would do in my position.

Look Mori, I'm not trying to bust your balls. Truth is, I love this site. Anyone who spends any time here can tell you I'm always in the talkbacks. My wife would tell you the same thing. And I think you're a great critic. I've felt a weird (but not too weird) kinship with you ever since I saw Tsotsi and then read your glowing review of it. At the time, no one else had even seen it. So I had no one to discuss it with. But you captured my feelings perfectly. So when I see a review of yours next to a banner ad, I hate that it even crosses my mind that maybe, just maybe, you aren't being entirely truthful.

A longshot... does anyone remember when that M. Night disaster had banner ads all over AICN and Drew tore it a new starfish? If you haven't, go back and read it. Obviously, I can't provide proof that Lady in the Water ads were everywhere, but a little help from someone who remembers? Anyone?

Visually, Fight Club rules. It's also just flat-out entertaining on several different levels. I just don't think the point of the movie is all that much of a revelation. If you don't want to be an office drone, don't be an office drone. I guess that's a shocking idea for some people. It's kind of petty, bourgeois stuff honestly. The fact that it's entertaining petty bourgeois stuff counts for something. It's just not that mindblowing if you haven't lived your entire life like a coward.
Fincher's a great director, and Fight Club is one of the better movies of the past ten years or so. But I'm hoping Zodiac will be his second masterpiece. His first of course being Seven.

Alot of people, myself included, were doing the things that Jack was doing such as working shit jobs for low pay just to buy superfluous shit and whatnot. The only thing was, there was no one around telling anyone different, that in the great scheme of things, none of that matters. Hell everyone else was telling me I needed to do just that, that I needed expensive clothes, a $50,000 car and whatnot. Then I saw Fight Club, which I thought was going to be about what the title indicated. I had to see it again because the ideas presented to me and a lot of the things Tyler pointed out in the film just made sense all of a sudden, a revelation in otherwords. I looked at my life and I was like "FUCK". I was living it the way I was expected to live and I didn't never put a single original thought into where I wanted to go, but was doing what everyone was doing. So yeah, the movie, and to another extent, the book changed my life dramatically. True story.

The point of "Fight Club" was not, "Hey, screw this, I don't WANT to wear a tie and organize paper clips!" There was a little more going on than that. I admit that I have been shocked lately at Harry's recent reviews. He's actually starting to write in a recognizable version of English. Keep up the trend, Mr. Knowles.

There are plenty of voices out there telling us to get off the hamster wheel, to quit chasing the cheese, that the true rewards in life aren't material, but if it was "Fight Club" that helped you learn that, it's good you got the message. I hope you didn't get some of the other messages, though! The morality of the film was a bit confused, but when you consider the mental state of the protagonist, confusion is to be expected.

Common mistake, especially when used in the expression 'petit crimes.' 'Petty' is seen often these days, but the truth is the expression comes from French, so it should be written as 'petit' as in 'petit bourgeois.'

Any good? I love Fincher's movies, even if each has huge flaws (including Fight Club--"Don't be a number, be an individual!" is one of the easiest ways to get praise), but I'd read that Zodiac had accuracy problems, so the thing I am really looking forward to here is the first score by Coppolla's former bro-in-law in a long time. (Never got the attraction of Downey or Gyllenhall, but Ruffallo is terrific--ever see You Can Count On Me? Much more satisfying than his Scatman-in-The-Shining bit in Collateral.)

I'm so glad that at least one critic (of 66 on the tomatometer at RT at the moment) mentioned the best serial killer movie ever IMO, you have to see that movie to believe it, it starts like a sort of comic cop movie, with the goofy small town cop and the hotshot sent from the city to help, making you like the characters a lot and feeling confortable with them, but as the number of victims increases then gradually the tension goes up and up until it reaches one of the most powerful climax endings I've ever seen, when two cops are face to face with the man that in their hearts they know is the rapist-murderer angelic looking weirdo but they just can't prove it, and they have to fight their desire to blow his head off, if the zodiac turns to be on the same level it will be the best film of the year for sure

The Vallejo Times-Herald put on a free screening here in the town where the first murder took place and where the #1 suspect lived for many years. The movie is creepy and compelling. In the audience was a family member of one of the victims (I think) and the lady who took the Zodiac's first call to the Vallejo Police Department. Though it's 2 hours and 40 minutes you never feel it. I just wished they had actually filmed in Vallejo.

It's not a matter of getting sickos worked up from the volence they see on the screen, and then they go out and kill people. This isn't it. It's about glorifying a serial killer and making it clear that if you go kill a bunch of people, then yes, you too can be immortalized in film and print and everywhere else. So it does encourage people that way.

Zodiac is the kind of flick you can take a small nap during, wake up a little later, and still know what's going on. That's how fucking long it is. Nah, kidding. I loved this movie, saw it on Saturday. Jack Twist and Paul Avery (who plays Robert Downey Jr.) give awesome performances. There are some really goosebumpifying, neck-hair-raising scenes (not including the murders) -- especially Jack Twist's interaction with the poster artist (spoiler? I think not). Drew Carry's brother as Lee Allen is also very creepy. The musical score is great, too. Very slick, subtle, and well-timed to evoke the feeling that you've just seen a movie that you want to show to friends and family. I did kind of find it rude however, that after staring at a sixty foot screen for almost three hours, I'm asked to read a small novel at the end. It was like Fincher said, "Oh, by the way..." It's a hassle for the eyes to adjust that quickly. All in all, great movie-going experience. Throughout my life, I've sort of had an aversion to action-movies (except if they have Batman -- Nolan's mind you --, Spiderman, or Superman in them), so it's always nice when a well-crafted drama comes out that will persuade me to take up the daunting challenge of sitting in a rigid, uncomfortable chair for so long. Out.

The fact that DNA didn't match Arthur Lee Allen doesn't mean that he isn't the Zodiac. Considering the sheer volume of people handling the Zodiac letters, it's not surprising that they got a DNA profile that didnt match. The circumstantial evidence is very, very strong and with the death of Allen, the cases will never be closed now. Even if their was someone to prosecute, I guarantee that the gun shy, overly liberal and pretty much useless San Francisco District Attorney's Office would never do it. Maybe Solano or Napa Counties...

DONOVAN'S great song HURDY GURDY MAN was used to bookend ZODIAC and IONE SKYE has what I think is an uncredited role as the mother with child who has her back tire loosened and gets a ride from either the real Zodiac or an imposter. The cool connection is that DONOVAN is IONE'S father. There is no way this can be a coincidence. Also it was funny seeing the REAL HANNIBAL LECKTOR quivering in the backseat of a cop car going to talk to the Zodiac on tv. Can't wait for the extended edition on dvd

Damn! I thought that was her. I saw the movie last night and for some reason had her confused with Chloe Sevigny (who I thought was the Trillian in HGTTG). I guess I need to stop popping pankillers. God, I loved her in River's Edge. Still use one of my favorite lines from that movie, via Dennis Hopper, "I used to eat so much pussy my beard looked like a glazed doughnut." CLASSIC. Poor Ad Rock, Ione left him for another woman...
Anyway, Zodiac was fantastic. Loved the whole downward spiral of everyone associated in the investigation--acting was top-notch.

...anybody know what's up with that? Fincher's obsessed with detail, and then a 1980 calendar shows up prominently over Leigh's shoulder in a 1983 scene. Maybe if it were a private office, it would show that he was neglectful or something, but this is on a hardware store's floor -- surely within three years someone would've replaced it with a current calendar...?

Glad to see AICN is pretty much unanimous in its support for Zodiac. I've been chomping at the bit for another Fincher film for some time. I honestly have NO IDEA why people constantly degrade Panic Room...for my money, that was one of the finest pocorn movies that came out that year. I just don't get it...when I asked a friend (who's also a film/english professor at a college near me) if he had seen Panic Room, he responded "unfortunately, yes". That really pissed me off. Thats why I love AICN so much...I get the sense that you guys are able to find the good in almost every movie out there...and while I occassionally disagree, I find your consistent efforts to give each and every film you encounter a fair chance so refreshing. This site is the least cynical film site on the net, and God Bless you guys for that. Now, its off to see Zodiac!

Don't get me wrong: Fincher's given us two films that became two of my favorites--Se7en and Fight Club. And Downey can simply do no wrong. My problem with the whole idea is this: you know going in that the killer isn't caught. Nothing any of these people do works. Whoever and wherever the fucker is (or was, I should say), he's laughing like hell and eluding everyone. So we get two and a half hours of frustration; of a story that basically says, Hey, look what these guys went through--AND IT DIDN'T DO ANY GOOD, HA HA HAAAA! Now tell me:
how the hell is that entertaining? How do you feel anything but shitty after a movie like that? If the point is to make us all believe that ultimately nothing matters, sometimes evil wins, too bad, so sorry...why the fuck would anybody wanna fork over ten dollars for such a treat? (And before someone starts yelling "how come you liked Se7en, then, you bundle of contradicitions asshole you?"...well, maybe it's because THAT was fucking FICTION. Being reminded of NONfictional failures of those who are supposed to protect us from the shit out there don't exactly give one a helluva lotta hope for the human race, now, duzzit? Comes a little too close to JonBenet Ramsey and Natalee Holloway to me--do we really need to be reminded of the ineptitude of so many of those who sport a badge?

This is a great film. I thought Graysmith could've been portrayed better... he was a little too squeaky clean, and Gyllenhal might've been the wrong casting choice, but the movie still works. Fincher did a great job filming what was, in many ways, a difficult if not nearly impossible story to film. Even without an "ending," the whole thing still works.

Making a film about a person or subject does not immediately glamorize that person or subject. Issues are explored and stories are told, at no point is it said, or even implied, that serial killers are cool and should be imitated.
Are you suggesting that a person would watch this movie and suddenly develop psycopathic tendancies in order to become famou? I call bullshit. Basically what you are suggesting is banning any movie/book/magazine article along these lines JUST IN CASE someone who already has these tendancies will be inspired to carry out their twisted thoughts on the off chance they wont get caught and gassed. That is not only wrong and completely short sighted, it is profoundly stupid in every conceivable way. What started Jack the Ripper off then? A fucking flip-book???? I suppose you think Trainspotting glamorized drug use? Dipshit!!!

But in the interest of full disclosure, I liked Panic Room, which a whole lot of people seem to have problems with. I still can't figure out why...the cinematography alone was riveting...a true "rollercoaster ride".<p> As for Zodiac, I loved it, and I'll enjoy it even more when I watch it again on dvd. There is SO MUCH information in the movie that its almost impossible to catch everything the first time. Yet, its a sign of Fincher's genius that even missing a good amount of the information doesn't prohibit you from keeping up with the "plot"...it just ensures that the film will get better with each subsequent viewing. And I can't wait for that!<p> One aspect of this film that I don't think has been adequately conveyed by any review I've read is the enormous CAST of this movie. You can't go 10 minutes in this film without another GREAT actor showing up. <p> "Look, its Philip Baker Hall!" <p> "Look! Its Clea Duvall!" <p> "Look! Its the guy from MadTV and Little Miss Sunshine!"<p> Boy, have I missed David Fincher. Along with PTA, Fincher is one of the MIA directors whose absence for the past few years has REALLY bummed me out. Its so great to have him back, and in top form.<p> This is Fincher's All The President's Men (with dashes of JFK and the GOOD elements of Summer of Sam thrown in for good measure), and in my opinion it works almost as well as that film. <p> This isn't Fight Club...it doesn't scream out for attention. Zodiac is a true "sleeper", a film that got lost in the shuffle bewteen Wild Hogs and 300. But this film will have life on dvd, and when people get the chance to unravel this complex mystery at their own pace, this film will take its place next to Fincher's finest work.<p> One last thing...the period detail in thes film is worth the price of admission. There's something so magical about seeing the 70's recreated in this way. You can almost smell the cigarette smoke in the movie theater lobbies and restaurants, a ghostly reminder of a forgotten time in which a forgotten killer stalked his prey. This film is, for me, about the 1970's every bit as much as it is about a serial killer...about the kind of society in which a fascination with this kind of individual could flourish. In stark contrast to our modern age, in which news reports of the BTK killer make us only want to change the channel in aggravation (there's a President lying to us daily, after all), this film astutely showcases the manner in which the inherent limitations of communication (in both mass media and person-to-person interactions) simultaneously stimulates public interest while curtailing efficient police work. Its a MUCH deeper film than even the brilliant trailer leads one to believe. <p> See it!!

I thought Zodiac was good, and now that I think back to it, there seem to be some similarities between it and The Black Dhalia, especially the obsession that ensues from having to know..... Although Zodiac was by far a better film than Black Dhalia.

I really loved this movie. As mentioned above, the acting was great, and the 'feel' of the movie was so right for that period. I found it very intriguing and interesting how it played out and for so long. And Finch weaved it together into a nice cohesive story, even though it covered so many years. One of the better movies I've seen this year. Excellent.

and notices that symbols can be inserted also. Orcus was expecting something a bit more intuitive for the Bold face though. One a side note, JPT, remember what happened to the Journeyman tb a while back. Hehehe. A bunch of us threw in color too.